Ulster County debate over travel guide spending exposes disputed costs; contract briefly fails, later reconsidered

The Ulster County Ways and Means Committee spent more than an hour on May 15 debating a contract to print, produce and distribute the county’s annual travel guide and related promotional services, focused on sharply different cost estimates and whether the printed guide remains an effective tourism tool.

The committee heard detailed line‑item figures from tourism staff and county analysts. The director of tourism said the travel guide project secures matching funds from I Love New York (the state tourism program), which provides about $59,000 in matching support for the current project. The tourism director described the guide as a core tool for visitor promotion and said photography and content from the guide are reused throughout the year in digital campaigns.

Committee members pressed for a single “all‑in” number for the project. Multiple figures were discussed in the meeting record: Flint Media (advertising sales/fulfillment) was discussed in the range of approximately $76,700 (with an optional $10,000 photography add‑on), a print contract with Catamount Color was described around $57,200, and targeted distribution contracts with third‑party distributors were discussed near $43,038. County staff and the financial analyst reported a separate, lower out‑of‑pocket estimate of about $52,006.23 after applying I Love New York matching funds; tourism staff said other invoiced amounts and matching‑fund mechanics account for differences in those totals.

Several legislators, including Legislator Kovacs and Legislator Nolan, asked for a single accounting of the total project cost (design, printing and distribution) so the committee could see how much the county would pay out of pocket after State matching. Tourism staff and supporters said the guide is part of a layered marketing strategy that also includes social media, influencer visits and QR codes, and argued print remains important for visitor centers and out‑of‑market distribution.

When the committee first voted on the printing contract, the tally tied and the motion failed (the transcript records a 3–3 result and the chair announcing “it fails”). Committee members then requested additional accounting and time to confirm figures. Legislator Gobert moved to reconsider the vote after further discussion; some members subsequently changed their votes and the committee retook the question. Meeting audio and minutes show the chair called the vote again after members adjusted their positions and the motion ultimately advanced (transcript shows the question was brought back to the floor and later recorded as carried). Several legislators continued to press for a concise summary of total costs and how much of the project expense is eligible for I Love New York matching funds.

Committee members also debated whether I Love New York rules limit the use of matching funds — one legislator observed state matching grants do not allow some digital media (for example, TikTok) as eligible expenses, which affects the county’s ability to shift dollars entirely into newer platforms. Supporters of the guide said print distribution reaches visitors who plan by brochure or who want printed itineraries and that the guide’s content also fuels digital efforts.

Questions that remained at the meeting’s end included a single reconciled all‑in cost for printing, advertising and distribution and a request from several legislators that future resolutions include total project costs to avoid “hidden” or threshold‑hidden contracts under $50,000.